is AI art copyrighted? not if there’s no human work, US office says

AI art can be under copyright protection, US office says

The US Copyright Office says that AI art can be copyrighted only if there’s human input involved in the making. The January 2025 report released by the Office, which is the official governing body in the country on copyright registration, details the copyright law and policy on using artificial intelligence in artworks and content. It says that the governing body has considered more than 10,000 comments it has received in response to its Notice of Inquiry.

Around half of these are on copyright claims. Most of them say fully AI-generated art is not copyrightable. Then, artists and creatives who use AI as an ‘assistant’ to producing their works are protected by copyright laws. However, it’s a case-by-case basis to determine whether ‘human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship.’ In this case, authors and artists and their art and other works are still under copyright protection even if they’ve been made with AI generative tools, such as Midjourney and DALL-E. On the other hand, the protection applies to the parts that have been generated with human inputs alone.

image courtesy of Dada Projects | read more here

Authors need to prove they’re involved in the creation process

Artists need to prove that they are, or at least a human is, involved in the process. The report says that in many cases, these outputs are under copyright protection either in whole or in part. What the governing bodies need to decide on is where the artists use the AS as a tool and where they’ve been able ‘to determine determine the expressive elements they contain.’ Then, there are also no legislative changes taking place when it comes to AI art-related laws.

These copyright questions are resolved according to the existing laws. What’s excluded from the copyright protection is when these works are fully generated by AI. This covers ‘material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements,’ the report says. Art generated by prompts alone is also excluded from copyright claims. The US Copyright Office report adds that artists, authors, and creatives who perceive that their art and works are used in AI-generated outputs can claim copyright.

image courtesy of Str4ngeThing | read more here

AI as a tool vs as a stand-in in making art

This extends to the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, as well as when the AI art and its output have been modified. The Office also underlines that there needs to be a distinction between using AI as a tool to make art and as a stand-in for the artist. ‘This distinction depends on how the system is being used, not on its inherent characteristics,’ the report says.

In this case, it’s okay for the users to ‘refer’ to AI when making their art and other works. However, when they start to incorporate it into what they’re making – say, using generative tools – then they must be able to prove that they’ve created parts of it themselves to secure copyright and authorship. The report is released in January 2025 and covers US copyright laws. The Office says that it will continue to monitor technological and legal developments surrounding AI art and content to see whether or not they need to ‘revisit’ these conclusions and recommendations.

AI series of playgrounds | image courtesy of Emilio Alarcón | read more here